Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    February 15, 2012 10:48pm-11:18pm PST

10:48 pm
and i did not think i should speak on this, but as far as supervisor avalos talking about expanding this program to underserved communities and things of that nature, and the last speaker was talking about technical suggestions, and they do not work by themselves. there is a collaborative tbilisi year in the san francisco metropolitan area that educate people about these programs and services and provide them with technical services to qualify for these loans, and if they do not get these services, they cannot do that. the small business center is grossly underfunded and spread and normally -- thin. if they were given more resources and allowed to expand their services to these market areas, that these organizations will qualify for these loans, and they would get them and be able to do what it takes to
10:49 pm
keep their businesses sustainable, so i think that is a good thing to look at. i think this is very important to the community. san francisco has the largest rate of cell phone point entrepreneurs of any metropolitan area in the united states, and i think this is one of the reasons why. chair chu: thank you. are there any other speakers who wish to speak on this item number seven? seeing none, this item is closed. supervisor avalos? supervisor avalos: i think it is really good that this item was brought forward. we see their real value in it and want to be able, sometimes desperately support our small businesses in our commercial
10:50 pm
corridors, and some are failing more than others. i do not think we have the right formula yet that has been discussed for me to be able to support this program going forward with a billion dollars supplemental. it is not that i would not want to approve something like this. we could continue this for a month and get more plans in place for the office of economic and work force development to share with us how we're going to work with other city departments, what kind of models would work in the neighborhoods that are harder to serve with this find. that is another idea that i have had, as well. i cannot quite remember what it was, but those are some of my ideas. why i want to be able to support at another time.
10:51 pm
they have talked about putting loans to credit unions and community development financial institutions in terms of a community investment strategy, and to me, there are things happening in san francisco that we have that we could use to broaden the scope and reach an have new ideas about how it can be structured, and i think that is worthy of discussion, with the office of work force development, how we can perhaps look at how there are financial institutions like credit unions that want to access this, how that can work in concert. those are my ideas. i feel most comfortable getting more information. i do want to support the continuance of the revolving loan fund, but i want to make sure it is for the harder
10:52 pm
served neighborhoods. chair chu: thank you, supervisor avalos, and i think you have made a motion to continue this to the call of the chair, and i would be supportive of that. i think we need to look at the small-business loan revolving fund is a good thing. i think it is a strategy among many to figure out how to help our commercial corridors, and i felt that there are those that are not in the commercial corridors, but i do not think we have the full picture yet. i think we could benefit from hearing about what the particular plants could be that we put into place to make sure we have more geographic equity and more around some harder reached neighborhoods and businesses. i do want to better understand some of the issues as it relates to -- we went forward with the rfp or not an rfp.
10:53 pm
i think that is important for us to understand, and finally, with regard to the value of what we actually need in the revolving loan fund, that is something i am hearing a lot of information on today, so i would hope for more clarity on the loans that would be needed. i also think, as supervisor avalos alluded to, we have driven strategies that are in place. in just taking a look at it, we have a small business commission. we have a small business office. we have sf sines, opportunity grants and the challenge grants, more, ball that can work with this. rather than say we are going to create a new program, we might want to take a look at what we are doing already and seeing whether some of these things should be continued, should not be continued, or should work in concert with the neighborhood plan, i think there is an opportunity to have a good and robust a conversation around it,
10:54 pm
so a continuance is something i would be in support of. supervisor jim? supervisor kim: -- supervisor jim? hot and -- supervisor kim? supervisor kim: i am in support of this, it and i believe this is not urgent. i appreciate the thoughtful and as of the questions, and a little bit more time to about with all of our programs that benefit our small-business programs and how this will dovetail into our existing resources for small businesses would be helpful, and also having an understanding of what the treasurer's office is doing, which supervisor avalos brought. i think it would be good to have been hearing on how we support small businesses as we approve this loan front -- fund in the future.
10:55 pm
this is a supplemental appropriation. we have several competing needs that may be coming before us, all very worthy of our general fund dollars, and i think to evaluate that would be important, as well. chair chu: thank you, supervisor kim. i think that supervisor avalos has made a motion to continue this, and i think we can do that. item number 9. clerk young: item number nine, and resolution of intention to form waterfront infrastructure financing, under the host and the america's cup event authority, which also has proposed agreement, approving a memorandum regarding the city
10:56 pm
and the of the authority for certain mitigation measures and other project-related activities. item no. 9, the intention to establish the infrastructure financing district. thank you. -- chair chu: thank you. i want to recognize that we also have president chiu with us as well as others. we have representatives from another group, and from the event authority, we also have stephen, who will be sharing a few words, but before we start the presentation, i would like to offer my colleagues an opportunity for any opening comments. supervisor avalos? supervisor avalos: thank you,
10:57 pm
chair chu. i just want to say that i am very skeptical about the numbers here for a long time, and for me, it is actually very precious, this discussion, in this part of san francisco that we are talking about, the waterfront. my father was an longshore worker. one that i could have taken would of been on the docks, probably in l.a. not in san francisco, but this means a lot to me, been beijing can -- this means a lot to me, and there are our facilities for our dry docks, and our port facilities are something that is amazing in san francisco, and they need a great deal of work, and i know when you look at the america's
10:58 pm
cup event as something that can be and should be a win-win situation for the city and for the event authority which is putting on the event, and i do not think we aren't there yet. i am really concerned. if it was just a vote about whether or not we were going to have a race, i would be all for a raise, and i would be right there to watch from the golden gate bridge or somewhere where you have a majestic view of our big, because it is unlovely base that we have, but it is more than that. it is a development deal. there are decisions we're making that a potentially unlimited liability for airport and for the general fund, and that gives me pause as to what we are getting ourselves into. when we first had this discussion, i think in september 2010, there was a report that came out prior to that date that showed there'd be about $1.40 billion in economic activity that was going to come to san francisco and the bay area because of the event.
10:59 pm
there would be hundreds of thousands of visitors that would come and about 8000 jobs that would come. it would be created in the event, the temporary jobs, over time jobs, but jobs nonetheless, and now we are getting very close to the event, and we have our environmental impact report coming out that shows perhaps the numbers of people that are going to becoming are not going to be quite as big, so we are not seeing quite the benefit we were expecting coming forward, and that means are we going to be able to generate the kind of revenue we expected to come out or the economic benefit we expected to come out of the event, and i would say we are not seeing that, and then we have the kind of tourism we were expecting from the event, for spectators to come to the bay area to enjoy, or is this something that is going to be on television, and what are the economic factors that are going to be changing because of looking at having the event go on here in san francisco.
11:00 pm
as it is today, i could not vote for this measure, and i hope what the discussion we have today will lead to the port being able to go back to agree to negotiate a lot of the terms of the event. the financing i think is not as well as it could be. i am concerned about 330 going up for the sales, and we are really not doing as well as we could in terms of the interests with the transfers on those sales that are going forward. i think we can do better. i think the interest rates for covering the gaps in meeting the cost of the events going forward that we have going forward is way too much for us to cover. i am concerned about some of the public assets, how they are not going to be in the public cans in the future and what kind of access we will have to accept
11:01 pm
these parts of our ports, and i am really concerned about equity. i actually have a great deal of people with boats in my district, district 11, who actually, strangely enough, you travel around the streets in district 11, you will see boats, people who do not have places to park their boats, and maybe years ago would have had a lively and on the bay as fishermen and fish are women. we do not have that now, but there are people that go out and fish every day, and they park their boats inland. there is nothing that would allow them to have economic benefit to serve the communities like mine. i have not seen it forthcoming, and i am concerned about that. i think we have gotten closer on the work force issues and local hiring. i am really excited about that. i am still waiting to see language that will make me feel
11:02 pm
really optimistic, but i am feeling more optimistic than i was before, and i want to thank the authority for engaging in that discussion and getting us closer to where we were, but lacking in being able to support this as it stands today, and i think we can have that win-win situation, but the finances have to do a lot better for the city, and i am hoping we can see what we can get in further negotiations between the port and the city and the event of 40, because i think we can get there. what we have in terms of a race that can be enjoyed by not just the bay area but the world is something that we should seek to employment here in san francisco, and i hope we can get there. chair chu: thank you, supervisor avalos. supervisor chiu? supervisor chiu: thank you.
11:03 pm
i want to thank you for all of your hard work. i was one of the initial sponsors of the initial legislative proposal that we put forth that we voted on on december 14, 2010. i have been a big supporter of the america's cup, but i think as folks understand, my support is not unconditional. this has to be good for our city, and recent reports say it has not gotten better but has got worse for the city. since december 14, we know first and foremost the deal changed, but i think just importantly, the cost for the infrastructure fixes as well as the cost to the city for the event have skyrocketed. fundraising, unfortunately, is not where we had hoped it would be, but we want to thank the america's cup organizing committee for all of your efforts, and we also know that the attendance assumptions have been brought down, and we have witnessed what happened in san diego and have some concern. i want to thank our budget
11:04 pm
analyst, mr. rose, with your report, and i know we will hear an update on it. i just want to state at the outset, given what we know now, i somewhat -- i support pretty much what is in the report and more. there are other issues we have to figure out, but as quickly as possible, hopefully over the next week, we can resolve these issues. let me just quickly talk about a couple of them. first of all, pier 29. i cannot support something that includes that. i just wanted to say that. when this was included after december, there was one to be significant engagement for any of the northernpiers to be in the dda, and that has not happened, and there is your support for this development. other things that mr. rose touched upon in his report have to deal with the resale of condominiums and the fact that at this time there is no revenue
11:05 pm
share between the city and the event authority on bad. per standard port agreements, we do not have any rent personages as part of long-term leases. there are real questions about the existing marina development rights, and i hope this afternoon, we will be able to go through these, and i know we will continue to have these conversations over the next week. i do want to mention one thing that was not included in the report which surprised me over the last few days, and it really has to deal with one item in number nine, and it is something that i do not think that many including my colleagues are aware of, including a seawall lot. this is a subject of an extremely controversial project in the corner of my district, the so-called eight washington project, and there is a lawsuit that is pending at this time. i do not think it is inappropriate for us to make any pre-determinations on the future
11:06 pm
of that project which has not even come to the board at this time, so i think we should deal with that issue, and i think that is something we can easily do, but at the end of the day, there are lots of issues we can work on, and i am committed to work on this to resolve these issues, like supervisor avalos and i think like many of us. we want to get this agreement to a place that is going to work for the city, for the america's cup, and for everyone involved, and i look forward to this conversation. i know that we are likely to be here for awhile. i just want to state at the outset that i may have to leave or be in and out, but i will certainly watch whatever testimony imus, and a look forward to this in the coming days. thanks. chair chu: thank you very much, supervisor chiu. i also want to welcome supervisor compost who has
11:07 pm
joined us -- supervisor campos who has joined us. supervisor campos: thank you. i want to look carefully at this, and i think all of the people from both sides to have come out today. i am not want to be labor what was said about the america's cup and the fact that the board has been in support of bringing the america's cup to the city and port of san francisco. the issue is not whether we want to host the america's cup. we clearly do, but we want to make sure in doing that that we all get a deal that we can be proud of, and quite frankly, for me, i do not have any history in negotiating with billionaires, but i want to make sure that the city and county of san francisco gets the kind of deal that mr. larry ellison would it for himself. that is the test from my perspective, and those of you who follow the press, there is
11:08 pm
an interesting piece on the america's cup that the "sf weekly" had. the headline is the cup runneth over, where you have a major wave overrunning the city and county of san francisco. we want to make sure that we have a deal that is not only right for the city and county today but is also right for the city and county for generations to come. some of the property rights that are implicated here, that are being proposed, have the city making commitments on property and assets that, quite frankly, not only belong to us but belong to future generations of san franciscans, and we have an obligation to make sure that 10, 20, 30, 40 years from now, people are not going to look back at this deal and say, terrific what were they thinking back in 2012 -- and say, "what
11:09 pm
were they thinking back in 2012?" i think the recommendations made in this report are recommendations that should be adopted, beginning with fact that any reimbursement that is made by the city to the authority should be based on estimates that are actually made by an independent third party so that we have a neutral party that actually tells us what the legal and financial obligations to the city actually are, making sure that certain provisions that were included subsequent to the board approving the original deal, that some of those provisions are taken out. there is no reason why certain things that ratted in the agreement as it stands today should be allowed to continue. i also agree with what president chiu was saying about
11:10 pm
pier 29. there was no limit on the total expenditure the city has to undertake in this project. i think we need to make sure that we put a cap on what the port is required to reimburse the event authority. the issue of what benefit the city will actually get from the america's cup has been a moving target, and when that moving target is such that they number of spectators is being reduced and potentially the number of jobs that are being created could be reduced, and the economic benefit could be significantly lower than what was originally proposed, i think we have an obligation to make sure that there is no blank check that is left here on the table. we need to make sure we put a cap on what is expected of the port of san francisco. i also think we need to make sure that we comply with good business practices.
11:11 pm
the city paying an 11% interest rate is not something that to me makes a great deal of sense. likewise, we should benefit from the sale of condominiums along the same lines that the port does with any kind of a deal. i think we need to make sure that at the end of the day, we as the city would get as good of a deal as mary alisyn would get for himself. let me say that i do worry about the inclusion of the seawall lot 351. i think we have to be careful that we are not tying the hands of the city on other projects that are going to come down the pike and that need to be decided and analyzed independently of this, and i do think it is important for us that we do not make any unnecessary commitments with respect to any future projects. i am not going to be able to be here for the entirety of the hearing, but i know forward to
11:12 pm
hearing what everyone has to say and the presentation, and i also want to take the opportunity to thank the staff, the mayor's office, and the port, who i know have been working very diligently to make this a better deal for the city. i think a lot of credit has been made, but, again, i do not think we are where we need to be, and as i said the last time this came before the board, i am not prepared to support this as it is. let-up that we can make this deal something we can support and be proud of. chair chu: supervisor kim > ? supervisor kim: i am not upset a
11:13 pm
lot on the record about this. there is the event, and there is a development agreement, and for me, personally, i have a strong interest to see how this development agreement is of benefit and a value to san francisco outside of the america's cup event in itself. i think many of us support the america's cup coming to san francisco, but i think we have to look at the deal completely differently. how does this development agreement in and of itself, what is the benefit to the city? what is the benefit of the improved city assets? what is the long-term value, and why are we using these, and what value is coming to us, so when we look at other development agreements, there are actual benefits that are outlined for the city, whether it is the development of affordable housing or infrastructure or transit. there are gaps in efficiencies. investment in small businesses
11:14 pm
or commercial corridors. that is clear in what we are getting out of the development agreement and what we are meeting the needs for in san francisco. i also have concerns about the fund-raising efforts so far. we have already incorporated this. to make sure the those dollars come in. having a re-evaluation of the economic benefits that the event will have for the city, i know that in september 2010, the original memo from the mayor to our board president was a this would bring in $1.40 billion in positive economic impact and up to 9000 jobs created. i think it is important now that we have had the experience of san diego and some of the other projections from the eir that we conduct another economic impact report that would establish a
11:15 pm
range with the high and low of expectations of what the economic benefits to the city will be. many of the concerns of the deal's structure were brought up by my colleagues. i generally support all the concerns that have been brought up. i think at minimum, i would like to see everything that has been recommended in the budget analysts report be put in, at minimum, and there are a couple of other above that that will come out throughout this budget hearing. last, i really do want to thank supervisor avalos because he has really taken the leadership role with a local hire and the prevailing wage issues. if we are going to have this event, we want to make sure our residents benefit from the wreckage -- the economic development but comes to the city, so i appreciate the work that has come around back. those are my concluding words
11:16 pm
thus far, and i will certainly bring up some of the other issues that i see before us for the city. chair chu: thank you, supervisor jim. -- kim. supervisor ammiano has someone here. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am from the assembly members office. he asked me to submit for the record regarding the question of the america's cup and local hire, which i know has been an ongoing issue of debate at the border and is up for your
11:17 pm
consideration today. the letter reads as follows. dear supervisor, it is my understanding that there will be a resolution, that there is an ongoing conversation that was made available through a resolution that offered last year and was signed into law by governor brown. it makes the america's cup a public-works project under the administration code, particularly in one section, which includes the prevailing wage, local hiring, and enterprise ordinances. i understand if the city work spending contracts to spend the city dollars, all of this section 6.22 would apply, but without the public and the structure financing made available through the legislation, the event would not happen. simply because a private entity in this case the event authority is spending money through a contract does not and should not exempted from section 6.22.